VYAS, J. - (1.) BY way of filing present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. III in Barmer District with effect from the date of filing the present writ petition with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the fixation of period of select list upto 31. 3. 1996 is illegal and the select list so prepared would have to be operated till the same is exhausted or at least new select list is prepared and the vacancies which become available during such period are required to be filled up from the select list so prepared. In the alternative, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to extend the period of select list by the period equivalent to the period from 18. 7. 1995 to 20. 11. 1995 and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III.
(2.) THE facts inter alia stated in the writ petition are that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in pursuance of the requisition sent by District Education Officer (Boys), Barmer and he was called for interview vide Annexure-1 and after interview the merit list was prepared and as per the petitioner his name was included in the merit list at Sl. No. 447. According to the petitioner before the list could be exhausted, a bunch of writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 18. 7. 1995 in writ petition No. 1668/1995 and 20 others wherein it was held that the selection procedure adopted for the year 1995-96 was illegal and a direction was issued for holding fresh selections. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the respondent No. 2 issued an order on 19. 8. 1995 staying the appointments in pursuance of the select list prepared for the year 1995-96. Against the aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge dated 18. 7. 1995 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/95 and other 20 writ petitions, special appeals were preferred by the State Government before Hon'ble Division Bench whereby Hon'ble Division Bench stayed the operation of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 15. 11. 1995 and 20. 11. 1995. In pursuance of the interim order granted by Hon'ble Division Bench, the respondent No. 2 issued orders on 30. 11. 1995 lifting the ban on appointments imposed on 19. 8. 1995. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 13. 12. 1995 giving appointments to 183 candidates. Out of 183 candidates, a large number of candidates did not join and some more vacancies being available, therefore, another appointment order was issued on 6. 1. 1996 whereby 115 candidates were provided appointments. Again, against 115 appointments a large number of candidates did not join and number of vacancies were also available, therefore, vide order dated 23. 3. 1996 as many as 79 candidates upto merit list No. 431 were provided appointment. The case of the petitioner is that his name was placed at Sl. No. 447 and in pursuance of the order dated 23. 3. 1996, out of 79 candidates only 60 candidates joined duties and thus, 19 vacancies left vacant. Against which, the appointments were to be made because candidates from the original list did not join their duties and again those vacancies fallen vacant due to non-joining of candidates, remaining persons in the merit list were to be provided appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the currency of select list was to be extended by the respondents because after 18. 7. 1995 when the judgment was delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside whole selection, a ban was imposed and later on the ban was lifted on 13. 12. 1995. Meaning thereby, the merit list so prepared was not operated due to litigation before this Court and the said period was to be extended by the respondents for providing appointments but last appointment was made on 23. 3. 1996 providing appointment to 79 persons. Out of which only 60 candidates joined and remaining vacancies were not filled in on the ground that according to the respondents the list was expired on 31. 3. 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the period in which the respondents imposed ban for providing appointment was to be extended and in that period, the appointment were to be made and remaining 19 vacancies which were fallen vacant due to non-joining of candidates, in pursuance of appointment order dated 23. 3. 1996 were required to be filled in but due to inaction on the part of respondents and not extending the period of select list after 31. 3. 1996, the petitioner was deprived from his right of consideration for appointment though he was in the merit list at Sl. No. 447, therefore, the petitioner while citing the judgment of this Court passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1346/2004 (Nathu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 14. 11. 2005 prayed that in the event of non-joining of candidates from main list, the respondents were under obligation to provide appointment to the remaining persons who were in the merit list against those unfilled vacancies. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards Annexure-5, filed along with rejoinder stated that after 31. 3. 1996 vide order dated 8. 9. 1996 five persons were provided appointment who did not join within prescribed time when they were earlier appointed. Meaning thereby, the respondents themselves provided appointment after 31. 3. 1996 again to those persons who were earlier provided appointment but they did not join within stipulated time, therefore, the respondents were under obligation to fill up all unfilled vacancies those fallen vacant due to non-joining of persons amongst 79 person who were appointed vide order dated 23. 3. 1996. During the course of arguments, on 25. 10. 2007, a direction was issued to the respondents for filing additional affidavit with regard to availability of vacancies de to non-joining of candidates in pursuance of the appointment order dated 23. 3. 1996 whereby 79 persons were provided appointment. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit has been filed by District Education Officer (Secondary) Barmer and in para-7, it is stated that out of 79 candidates appointed vide order dated 23. 3. 1996, 60 persons joined on the post of Teacher Grade. III till 5. 4. 1996 and 19 posts (11 posts for general (male) and 8 posts for general (female)] remained vacant but the reason that select list expired on 31. 3. 1996 as per rules, therefore, no appointments were made against those 19 available vacancies.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards para-7 of the aforesaid affidavit submitted that admittedly 19 vacancies were available due to non joining of persons who were provided appointment vide order dated 23. 3. 1996, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court which is based on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment against those 19 vacancies which were in existence because six persons were provided appointment again on 8. 9. 1996 that is to say after 31. 3. 1996, therefore, the respondents cannot discriminate the right of consideration for appointment on the ground that merit list was expired on 31. 3. 1996. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner as per his merit and grant him all the consequential benefits. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Mr. S. K. Vyas argued that though vacancies were in existence due to non-joining of persons amongst those 79 persons who were provided appointment on 23. 3. 1996 but according to the respondents, the currency of select list expired on 31. 3. 1996, therefore, there was no question of providing appointment to the petitioner even though he was in the merit list and vacancies were in existence. According to learned Government Advocate, no direction can be issued for providing appointment from the select list, which has already expired on 31. 3. 1996. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. ;